zlacker

>>benhur+(OP)
This happens again and again. I have had that happen to my twitter account. I see this regulary on HN.

My suspicion is that this is mostly happening because platforms that big like google or twitter rely very heavily on machine learning and other AI related technology to ban people. Because honestly, the amount of spam and abuse that are likely happening on these platforms has to be mind boggling high.

So I get why they would try to automate bans.

But after years and years of regular high profile news of false positives, one would think they eventually would change something.

I mean the guy had direct business with Google going on....

Why would they continue like that. Isn't there one single PR person at Google?

>>p410n3+Y2
Shows the bias in machine learning. One simple parameter isn't added and the whole model is bullshit.

One parameter would be: Amount of money this customer has spend on our products.

Another would be: Active time since signup.

I'm pretty sure if "money spend > 0" is actually a legitimate threshold to remove a lot of spam, although not all. "money spend > 200" might to the trick though.

>>WA+A6
This can be gamed. There are so many stolen credit card numbers and/or payments using Apple/Google pre-paid cards out there, so it's not difficult to automatically build accounts with this kind of 'reputation'.

Unfortunately the best way to do KYC is (still) human intervention (and use of data).

>>HenryB+5g
It is significantly harder to game though - companies succesfully offer behavioral monitoring for DLP products with far less data than the payment data Google has access to. Years of payments with a certain payment type? That's a pattern. Renting movies at certain time in the week? That's another... The truth of the matter is, somebody has to actually care to do this. From accounts of googlers I've read, that's not what the culture of Google is likely to result in though.